This acronym means “Bills of Exchange” and “Value Added Tax” … because it combines the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 with the VAT Rules to create a problem for those who issue Penalty Charge Notices, and other things such as Council Tax.

Background

The Bills of Exchange Act 1882 defines how financial transactions must take place in ways which try to ensure that no-one defauds anyone else. It defines that any demand for payment must be made on an Invoice, which clearly states the reason for the demand, the amount of the demand, the date of the demand, and who is making the demand.

AND THE “WHO” MUST BE A REAL, NON-FICTIONAL, PERSON WHO SIGNS THE INVOICE IN WET INK.

99% of all demand documents – these days – do NOT meet those criteria. But they ARE the criteria defined in (what they call) LAW.

Consequently a valid argument in any Court would be that “I have not yet paid because I have not yet received a valid Invoice”.

However, because the Utterly Corrupt Courts System has an Overriding Rule Zero (THEY DON’T OBEY THEIR OWN RULES) making that valid argument will invariably carry no weight … and the argument will be simply brushed aside.

However, if the VAT argument is added, the Utterly Corrupt Courts System finds it much more difficult to brush the argument aside because – by doing so – they would be acting to undermine Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

And we are in the position of bringing the VAT argument into the equation because it is something that they have all forgotten about ever since the start of VAT.

Value Added Tax is supposed (according to the rules) to be added to EVERY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION … for Goods AND Services. Businesses ‘register’ for VAT and, because of their ‘registration’, they are entitled to re-claim any VAT they have paid out.

(For that reason 95% of VAT goes goes round in a circle and comes all the way back to the start. It is the most INEFFICIENT system any one could ever devise)

However, what it means is that EVERY INVOICE SHOULD ALSO SHOW VAT … even if the status of the transaction is ‘Zero-Rated’ or ‘Exempt’. It needs to specify that – in addition to those items defined by the Bills of Exchange Act.

And just think how many times – and in how many circumstances – you get a ‘demand’ THAT BEARS NO MENTION OF VAT?

A demand that you are expected to pay – with ‘menaces’ if you don’t!

Apart for the fact that 99% of all demands contain a printed ‘squiggle’ in place of a wet ink signature, there is no mention whatsoever of VAT. This renders the demand COMPLETELY ILLEGAL. In a way that – we have discovered – a Court can’t just brush aside.

And so the Drabble Brothers (Peter Thomas and Richard) have devised the BoEVAT Remedy. This has now been tested in a Southampton Court … and has shown to successfully nullify a Parking Fine attempt by a firm called Parking Eye.

Details are on their website http://www.BoeVAT.org.uk, including very simple templated letters that can be downloaded for free. There are also descriptions of instances of success … for example “cancellations by Parking Eye” … and also the case in Southampton Court … which resulted in the case being ‘stayed INDEFINITELY’ (details below).

The reason why the BoeVAT Remedy works is because you “agree to pay” the demand. This removes ALL CONTROVERSY and – since Civil Courts operate on the basis of “resolving controversy” – it has nothing to do if there is no controversy.

And they know that. BUT THEY COULD NOT SIMPLY DISMISS THE CASE … for reasons I will give below.

The reason is that – while you “agree to pay” (thereby removing controversy) you add a few conditions WHICH SIMPLY REFLECT THE LEGAL POSITION DEFINED BY THE BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT and THE VALUE ADDED TAX RULES.

And by adding these conditions you have done TWO things:

1. NOT added one iota of controversy …2. … but created what is currently an insurmountable problem for any Claimant.

The Judge can’t award the case to you … because by doing so he or she would invalidate every PCN, Council Tax Demand, Court Fine, TV Licence Demand, Road Tax Demand etc. etc. etc. i.e. every demand that was not properly Invoiced and showing the VAT position.

But the Judge can’t award the case to the Claimant without allowing the Claimant to COERCE YOU INTO BREAKING THE LAW.

The Court don’t obey many rules – but even the most psychopathic of Judges or Clerks would balk at making a ruling to the effect that someone can “legally bound to BREAK THE LAW”!

So the case was “stayed” … INDEFINITELY – that being the Court’s only viable option.

WARNING: TO USE THE BOEVAT REMEDY SUCCESSFULLY YOU NEED TO STAND UP TO THE INTIMIDATION AND CALMLY STICK TO YOUR GUNS. If taken to Court - and you have followed the exact same templates as downloaded from BoEVAT.org.uk - you can conjoin yourself to the Southampton Case "D4FC175X 16th October 2017"

Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)

I think it is fair to estimate that the Southampton Judge would have found for the Claimant if that had been at all possible?

I think it is fair to estimate that the current state of legislation did not provide sufficient ‘wriggle room’ – as it currently stands?

Indeed, in order for this remedy to stop working, the following would be necessary:

1. Re-working the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 to ‘fit’ … something that was already done once by Denis Healy, in order to be able to introduce VAT Rules in the first place … and

2. Re-working the Fraud Act to accommodate

And by doing so, thereby ADMITTING the FRAUD that has been ongoing since VAT was introduced in 1973 (... in order to ‘harmonise’ with the European Union … which was then quietly masquerading as a “Common Market”).

So … how long do YOU think this remedy is likely to work?

Maybe it requires what is known as ‘a HARD BREXIT’ … providing the ability to quietly repeal VAT and re-introduce some kind of Sales Tax (which takes it all into account)?

Well … at the time of writing January 2018 - and with all due thanks to the endemically useless Theresa the Appeaser - ‘a hard Brexit’ is looking more unlikely by the day … so what are the chances?

Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)

It’s been pointed out that there is a vast difference between “Zero-rated for VAT” and “VAT Exempt”.

Only in the case of “VAT Exempt” is VAT (THEORETICALLY) not charged.

However, in the case of “Zero-rated for VAT”, once again THEORETICALLY, VAT IS charged ...

... the only thing is that the charge amount = Zero ... because … arithmetically … one is multiplying the demanded amount by Zero.

BUT IT STILL HAS TO BE SHOWN on the Invoice … according to the rules!

In the same way that “VAT Exempt” has to be shown (where necessary) on the Invoice … according to the rules.

The Invoice still has to show something like “VAT is charged at zero percent on this account” … or “VAT is exempt on this account”.

Dem’s de rools!

Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)

Until 2013 the VAT treatment of parking fines was unclear. The Court of Appeal then clarified the position as follows:

Local authorities. Parking fines charged by local authorities aren’t liable to VAT. Even where a VAT registration number is shown on the parking penalty notice the fine will not include VAT and so there’s nothing for you to reclaim.

Private car parks. Car park operators, e.g. NCP, may or may not charge VAT on finesdepending on how they describe charges they levy for overstaying.

Where the terms and conditions say that overstaying is not permitted and a penalty will be charged for doing so, the fine is not subject to VAT.

Tip. If VAT is charged, only pay the net amount and tell the car park owner why you have done this, i.e. because they have incorrectly charged VAT.

Note. If you pay VAT which should not have been charged, strictly you aren’t entitled to reclaim it.

If the terms and conditions say that overstaying will result in an additional charge for parking, even if it’s at a higher than standard rate, VAT is payable and you can reclaim it.

Enforcement companies. Fine enforcement companies that operate car parks usually set their own terms and conditions rather than the car park owner. This is typical where public organisations such as hospitals contract out their parking arrangements. The enforcement company monitors the parking and issues and collects fines. Penalties charged in these circumstances are damages for breaking their terms and conditions; damages are outside the scope of VAT.

OK ... these were obvious guidance notes for Accountants, and the Writer is obviously looking at it entirely from the point of view of Accountancy ... as opposed to the REAL WORLD.

The FACT is that the VAT Argument is actually SECONDARY to your enshrined Right in Law to know - precisely - what you are paying for ... and why ... and who you are paying it to.

Ummm ... it's what is called "a valid Contract" ... which is something the Writer of those notes has - presumably - no knowledge.

And that is defined by the PROPERLY-CONSTITUTED INVOICE.

WHAT ELSE IS AN INVOICE FOR - if it doesn't ACCURATELY reflect the transaction?

It is for this reason that the "legals" define the VAT Status to be stated clearly as a part of the Invoice - whether or not the amount makes any difference to the bloody 'accounting'!

If you pay VAT which should not have been charged, strictly you aren’t entitled to reclaim it.

... that is complete, utter and total HORSESHIT! The Charging Company would be guilty of monetary gain through false representation, i.e. VAT fraud ... says Richard Drabble ... and I completely agree ... as ... I suggest ... would any sane person (which, of course, excludes the knobheads known as Accountants).

And Peter (Thomas) Drabble draws your attention to the fact the the Writer of those notes refers to Penalty Charge Notices as "Parking Fines". They are not "FINES" ... it is a Penalty CHARGE Notice ... not a Penalty FINE Notice. They are "CHARGES" ... not "FINES". A distinction that seems to be lost on an Accountant.

Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)

Remember that time when a councillor in Scarborough said that parking fines were CONTRACTS?Do you get VAT on contracts?

Lawful Rebellion | Stop taking the PCN | parking tickets ...All I can say is that ... with Mr Anderson admitting PCNs are not fines but merely contracts. ... I have received five PCN's from my Ealing council for parking in ...lawfulrebellion.org/2009/12/18/toolbox-stop-taking-the-pcn/

Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)

If, when in Court, there is any question as to whether or not your request for a 'legal' Invoice has any merit, then you can refer the Court to Section 5 of this Pre-Action Protocol:https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/pdf/protocols/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims.pdf... which was written by the Master of the Rolls (mine's a Cheese & Onion, thank you!), and came into force on October 1st, 2017 (even though it was only a tidied-up summary of the Rools as they stood, anyway). Still ... it's nice to have it in black & white.

Don't be 'mislead' by this Protocol. It talks vociferously about a "Letter of Claim". And THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS ... A "CLAIM". It may be a VALID CLAIM ... it may be an INVALID CLAIM.

IT'S *NOT* AN "INVOICE".

And Invoice occurs WHEN THE CLAIM HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND AGREED BY BOTH PARTIES... and serves to DOCUMENT THE AGREEMENT (which may be an Amount which bears little relation to the original Letter of Claim!), and serves to act as Documentation for Accountancy Purposes.

(A "Claim" is a claim ... an "Agreement" is something else. There's a lot of stuff in the Pre-Action Protocol about "How to move from a Claim to an Agreement". In fact the Protocol stresses that is the Objective of it).

Under the BoEVAT Remedy you have already AGREED their CLAIM ... and simply want them to produce a VALID INVOICE FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES ... INCLUDING THE VAT 'POSITION' ... WHICH IS WHAT THEY CAN'T DO!

Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)

What debates? You have never, ever debated and that's why nothing ever, ever goes anywhere. Debates go nowhere because you shut them down with obscene and vicious demagogue rant, and snide comments about your oppononents. A demagogue or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Musashi.